Chapter 5: Society and Inequality in Eurasia/North Africa
In Chapter 5, we explore how the people of the second-wave civilizations era organized their social systems, and also how people of different classes interacted with one another. Similar to the First Civilizations, the second wave civilizations were "patriarchal" with a sharp divide among the classes among the hierarchies (192).
In China, the social hierarchy was divided into four ordered classes: elite officials, wealthy landlords, peasants, and then merchants. Upon reading about China's society and state, I had the initial impression that the peasants made up the lowest class, as they were oppressed by the state authorities to pay taxes and forced by wealthy landowners to sell their land to them. However, this was not the case because peasants were actually "honored" to be the "backbone of society" (198), but the merchants had an unfavorable "reputation" (198). This signifies the level of extent of social division and the wide gap of rankings. To me it is a ironic that the high elite viewed merchants as a social threat because they saw them as low at the same time.
In India, birth not only occurred on a "physical level," but also as an "initiation" into a class (200) that determined the level of respect and opportunity one would receive throughout their entire lifetime, with the exception of slow movement into higher classes through purchasing land, looking for ancestors that belonged to a higher class (202). Like China, there were four classes, known as varmas in the Varma system: the Brahmins (priests), the Kshatriya class (governors), the Vaisya class (cultivators of the land), and the Sudras (marginalized servants) (200). However, once the jati system emerged, India's caste system became more defined and was more divided than China's (202). I find it interesting how the origins are still unclear, but I can definitely see the correlation between skin pigmentation and economics, because generally across many societies, including our own, the lighter-skinned are privileged with more opportunity. Further, I am fascinated by the extent to which people of the higher classes made sure to define their status and make sure the lowest class did not exhibit any characteristics or relations with being high class. For example, the Sudras were not "allowed to hear or repeat the Vedas or to take part in Aryan rituals" (200).
Slavery did occur in China and India on a minor level, due to criminalization, poverty, wherein families had to sell their sons, and also the capturing of people during war times (204). It was an even larger issue in the Western world, as a much larger population of people were enslaved here than in the East (205). One thing that still strikes me is the justification of slavery through the Bible, which seems to contradict many of Christian values. Christianity, which seems to emphasize kindness and humanity, was a success in the Roman empire, yet it essentially defended slavery. In America, Southern plantation owners would soon use the Bible to back up their reasonings for enslavement. Strayer also emphasizes Romans viewed their slaves as "barbarians" (206), which is ironic to me because of the enslaved peoples' innocence. In reading I found that my personal bias got in the way of my true understanding of slavery, a practice I must avoid in learning about human history.
One major premise of this chapter is comparing social organization to the First and Second Civilizations. It is important to note the extent to which patriarchy was engrained in these groups. Gender, wealth, and status were all inherent institutions that determined one's future, though rare in some cases. As we discover the organization of people, it paves the way to exploring their cultures and behaviors.
In China, the social hierarchy was divided into four ordered classes: elite officials, wealthy landlords, peasants, and then merchants. Upon reading about China's society and state, I had the initial impression that the peasants made up the lowest class, as they were oppressed by the state authorities to pay taxes and forced by wealthy landowners to sell their land to them. However, this was not the case because peasants were actually "honored" to be the "backbone of society" (198), but the merchants had an unfavorable "reputation" (198). This signifies the level of extent of social division and the wide gap of rankings. To me it is a ironic that the high elite viewed merchants as a social threat because they saw them as low at the same time.
In India, birth not only occurred on a "physical level," but also as an "initiation" into a class (200) that determined the level of respect and opportunity one would receive throughout their entire lifetime, with the exception of slow movement into higher classes through purchasing land, looking for ancestors that belonged to a higher class (202). Like China, there were four classes, known as varmas in the Varma system: the Brahmins (priests), the Kshatriya class (governors), the Vaisya class (cultivators of the land), and the Sudras (marginalized servants) (200). However, once the jati system emerged, India's caste system became more defined and was more divided than China's (202). I find it interesting how the origins are still unclear, but I can definitely see the correlation between skin pigmentation and economics, because generally across many societies, including our own, the lighter-skinned are privileged with more opportunity. Further, I am fascinated by the extent to which people of the higher classes made sure to define their status and make sure the lowest class did not exhibit any characteristics or relations with being high class. For example, the Sudras were not "allowed to hear or repeat the Vedas or to take part in Aryan rituals" (200).
Slavery did occur in China and India on a minor level, due to criminalization, poverty, wherein families had to sell their sons, and also the capturing of people during war times (204). It was an even larger issue in the Western world, as a much larger population of people were enslaved here than in the East (205). One thing that still strikes me is the justification of slavery through the Bible, which seems to contradict many of Christian values. Christianity, which seems to emphasize kindness and humanity, was a success in the Roman empire, yet it essentially defended slavery. In America, Southern plantation owners would soon use the Bible to back up their reasonings for enslavement. Strayer also emphasizes Romans viewed their slaves as "barbarians" (206), which is ironic to me because of the enslaved peoples' innocence. In reading I found that my personal bias got in the way of my true understanding of slavery, a practice I must avoid in learning about human history.
One major premise of this chapter is comparing social organization to the First and Second Civilizations. It is important to note the extent to which patriarchy was engrained in these groups. Gender, wealth, and status were all inherent institutions that determined one's future, though rare in some cases. As we discover the organization of people, it paves the way to exploring their cultures and behaviors.
Comments
Post a Comment